All year in my Latin class I've made straight A's (yipee!!), but one thing I stuggled on was scanning. Thankfully, we never took a grade on scanning until now.

By monday, as one part of a much bigger final exam project, I need to scan and identify the meter of 25 lines of a poem.

It's frustrating because I see so many people scan something in no time, yet I can't get past one line.

Finally my question: Can someone please, please scan these 25 lines for me? It's the first 25 lines of Amores 1.6, we're doin it as our final poem.

I'm not sure if the best way is to write by hand and scan and send in an email or if there's an easy way to do it all on the computer, but either way I would love it if someone could take the time out of their day to help me out.

If someone could post here and help me out it would be much appreciated!!

Sorry, but the purpose of this website is to help people learn. I don't see how scanning these lines for you would teach you anything. Otherwise, if you actually want help with learning how to scan these lines yourself, please say so.

I'm afraid we ought not to do your homework for you, but we can definitely teach you how to scan. Actually there are some others here who recently have wanted to know more about Latin verse and scansion, so this'll be a great lesson for everybody. Understanding the natural rhythms of Latin speech and poetry is by for the most satisfying, beautiful aspect of the language (that and the trilled 'r's, of course, my favorite of all consonants).

In any case, these are easy lines to scan, we'll show you how.

First of all: what do you know about Latin scansion? Tell me, how do you recognise long and short syllables? Ovid uses a pairing of two kinds of metres fairly exclusively in his poetry; do you know their names and how they scan?

Give me a break. That comment doesn't belong here and should be removed by the moderators as soon as possible. This is a site for learning and helping, not for making up lewd and disrespectful suggestions.<pre> </pre>

It may be rude, but I think he's taking into consideration that this post was made by a user who has yet made no other post, who included a pic of themselves (and another) in less than "formal" attire, asked for a "big favor" from a "kind person" (sounds like a line in a Tennesse Williams play), and who asked people to "please, please" do her homework for her (a request which, I may add, is discouraged in a sticky at the top of the board without adding your own attempts).

I think it's fair to assume that Jessica passed her Latin class with the "A" she'd been earning all along, and is enjoying her summer on the beaches of Corpus Christi.

It should not be justified.
Paradoxically and between the lines, people's behaviour can benefit from a having a bogeyman around, though. What do you think of the paradox, Amadeus, cdm2003, Essorant and others?

Scenario 1. AdeleFromBoston behaves either in a silly manner, or in a wily manner, to try to get other people to work for her. She fails. Antistes whams her in a way so outrageous and shocking that AdeleFromBoston alters her ways (possibly,â€”certainly, she never asks again). Antistes's actions, however, cause some readers to be entertained but more to be outraged,â€”some out of sentiments that seek to protect others; some for reasons of political correctness; some out of personal moral conviction. Did the bad outweigh the good?
On reflection. Probably the bad outweighed the good, yes. Furthermore, when Antistes acted, it was already evident that AdeleFromBoston had got the message. So why did Antistes act? Because Antistes couldn't resist the opportunity for an outrageous joke (a little bit of vanity there). By revealing this weakness, Antistes tips the balance yet further to the bad.

Scenario 2. God causes the bogeyman to exist, so that children have a choice but, more importantly, so that the negative consequences of doing ill will be apparent. To ensure that responsibility for one's actions cannot be dodged, however, God must cause the bogeyman's existence and work to be known. So parents frighten children into doing good, or at least fearing to do wrong, by warning them of the bogeyman. Some children grow up angry at the bogeyman and their parents for frightening them when they were little, and then become angry at God for letting it all happen. Others, of course, grow up good and do good, for fear of the bogeyman. Was the story of the bogeyman good? Did the bad outweigh the good?
On reflection. ??????? What do you think?

Disclaimer. Despite the coincidence of events and names (AdeleFromBoston, Antistes, God, bogeyman, parent, child), the events and names in these scenarios are fictitious and no horses were harmed.

A quick note, amice Adriane, totally tangential (but what isn't tangential at this point in this thread?):

scena, not "scaena," which was an Imperial hypercorrection. It is a borrowed word from Greek ÏƒÎºÎ·Î½Î®.

Also consider: "plodere," not "plaudere."

Although these hypercorrections are Classical, we are beyond Cicero, and our Latin is recentior, which takes advantage of all modern, Mediaeval, Greek, and foreign vocabulary naturally developed since Caesar.

Thanks, Lucus. I appreciate what you say, truly. I'm just writing, though, in accordance with L&S and OLD.
OLD says Accius and some others occasionally favour scena but scaena is more classical Latin, due to a vowel shift from the Greeks caused by the Etruscans. L&S go further and say scena is used "falsely", and "scaena" is correct.
L&S favour "plaudere" and put "plodere" into second place classically. OLD is this time the more severe and says "plaudere" is correct and "plodere" is "dubious".
You used to favour Classical usage and argued vehemently against modern alterations, and not that long ago.
Surely it would be totally silly of me to start pronouncing all borrowed words in English in accordance with the languages they were borrowed from. The English language would become unrecognisable. So why twist things with Latin? I don't agree with your experiments in English spelling, but I know where you're coming from, although I would object if you suggested everyone else would be better writing "exsist" for "exist", say.

BTW, How did you know I would say "plaudere", were I to use it, Luke? It's true, but I didn't in this thread.
Obiter, Luce, quomodÃ² scivisti me "plaudere" dicere, si quidem eo utar. Verum est, sed in hoc filo non usus sum.

Reprehending somebody's behavior is not a bad thing in itself, but you do have to have the right intentions and deliver in the proper form. The Bishop's comments seem reprehensible to me because they lack the right intention (judging from what I can see, but obviously I could be wrong here) and the proper form. I highly doubt the girl changed for the better because of his comments. If she changed at all, my guess would be that she changed in spite of Episcopus' words. So, I don't see how the bad could outweigh the good here.

Scenario 2. God causes the bogeyman to exist ...

If God is God, id est, the highest Good, the fountain of Goodness, then He cannot be the cause of evil. Good can come out of evil, sure, but evil is never desirable nor justifiable.

Disclaimer. Despite the coincidence of events and names (AdeleFromBoston, Antistes, God, bogeyman, parent, child), the events and names in these scenarios are fictitious and no horses were harmed.

adrianus wrote:Thanks, Lucus. I appreciate what you say, truly. I'm just writing, though, in accordance with L&S and OLD.OLD says Accius and some others occasionally favour scena but scaena is more classical Latin, due to a vowel shift from the Greeks caused by the Etruscans. L&S go further and say scena is used "falsely", and "scaena" is correct.

This vowel shift intrigues me. Can you relate more of it?

L&S favour "plaudere" and put "plodere" into second place classically. OLD is this time the more severe and says "plaudere" is correct and "plodere" is "dubious".You used to favour Classical usage and argued vehemently against modern alterations, and not that long ago.

You are right. Let me explain my general principle for Latinity, then specifically we'll look at the scena/plodere matter.

My general principle is to utilize Classical Latin as the massive foundation it is for my own Latin. But if I thought Latin had lived and died with Cicero (or his aera), I wouldn't be so interested in Latin spoken today, or be a minor author of Latina recentior, ut aiunt. To converse today, with all our modern technology, history, and terminology, we cannot use only the words of Cicero. We use them first, then neologize as necessary.

So then, on to scena/plodere. I was first informed of this discrepancy through Vox Latina by Allen, which notes how urban Romans in the Classical aera were aware of the "rural" vowel shift of ae->e and au->o, which took hold in much of Italian and Spanish, as we know. (Really, this vowel shift was strongly influenced by Italians who came from Umbrian or Oscan speaking regions; in these native languages, the vowel shifts ae->e and au->o had already occurred, so they superimposed this upon Latin, and helped to shift it going into Vulgar Latin.) So, Roman grammarians were keen to correct letus as laetus and orum as aurum.

But the original verb was indeed plodere. This can be seen in its compounds: explodere, implodere, etc. "Plaudere" cannot be the original, writes Allen on page 61, since then the compounds would be "explÅ«dere," "implÅ«dere," as in con+claudere = conclÅ«dere. Quintilian also mentions that old comedies would invite applause with "plodite." Suetonius relates that Vespasian said "plostra," and Metius Florus instructed him to say "plaustra." The next day, Vespasian called him "Flaurus," which I think is hilarious.

So it must be "scena" as much as it must be "sceptrum," not "scaeptrum," another hypercorrection. I seek to imitate the Classical Romans â€” but I will not ape their errors.

Back in the general view of Latinity, I certainly advocate and speak of the Latin standard today as Classical Latin and the Classical Latin Pronunciation. Similarly, we may say that Standard Italian can be called Classical Italian, Classical Italian being from Petrarch to some unmarked period in the past â€” really, it's just Standard Italian. This is different from Italian dialect, such as Neapolitan â€” much as I enjoy but do not cultivate the Vulgar Latin dialects of Mediaeval Latin, like German Latin (Carmina Burana, for example), I will take pleasure in Italian dialect, but for comedy's sake mostly, which is how Italians view dialect as well.

A great example of the Standard versus Classical Italian can be seen in Mozart's Don Giovanni, the libretto for which having been written in Classical Italian by the illustrious Lorenzo da Ponte. Lorenzo da Ponte, in the aria known as the "serenata," wrote "il zucchero." But as any modern Italian will tell you, one says "lo zucchero" â€” all masculine words beginning with "z" take the article "lo," and not "il." And if I said "il zucchero" in Italy today, I would be politely corrected, for "il zucchero" is quite impossible.

Da Ponte did not write "il zucchero" as a hypercorrection, but as an acceptable variant at that time, so in this way the case is different from plodere/scena. However, I will not force "il zucchero" on modern Italians just because it is Classical Italian, even based on Da Ponte's usage. In modern Standard Italian, it is incorrect to say "lo zucchero" based on the rules of the language as they have been organized. And since I benefit from knowing that "scaena" and "plaudere" are hypercorrections, I do not used them either.

I don't agree with your experiments in English spelling, but I know where you're coming from, although I would object if you suggested everyone else would be better writing "exsist" for "exist", say.

You make me laugh outloud! only because, if you actuallly saw the way I write with my family members, you would know only then what my spelling experimentation is really like! hahaha. Here, I just write what I can get away with.